Does God Exist? (2025 New Delhi debate)

Does God Exist? (officially titled An Academic Dialogue: Does God Exist?) was an academic debate held on 20 December 2025 at the Constitution Club of India in New Delhi, India. Moderated by journalist Saurabh Dwivedi, the event featured Indian poet and lyricist Javed Akhtar and Islamic scholar Shamail Nadwi in a structured discussion on the philosophical question of the existence of God. The nearly two-hour exchange addressed themes including faith, reason and science, morality, free will, and human suffering, and attracted widespread media coverage and public commentary in India and internationally, situating the debate within broader contemporary discussions on belief, skepticism, and the role of religion in public life.

Background

In August 2025, the West Bengal Urdu Academy postponed a literary programme featuring poet and lyricist Javed Akhtar following objections raised by several Muslim organisations, including the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind. The Times of India reported that the objections were raised on the grounds that some of Akhtar’s comments had hurt religious sentiments, while India Today reported that the protesting organisations alleged that he had spoken against religion and God; Rediff also cited his publicly stated atheist views.

The Hindu reported that the Wahyahin Foundation was among the groups that opposed the invitation extended to Akhtar, citing his publicly stated atheist views. TOI reported that Shamail Nadwi, founder of the Wahyahin Foundation, stated that the group had not issued any threats and had instead invited Akhtar to participate in a debate on the existence of God.

According to The Indian Express, the exchange subsequently took the form of a formally organised academic debate held in New Delhi in December 2025, centred on the philosophical question of the existence of God.

Format and moderation

The debate was moderated by Saurabh Dwivedi of The Lallantop, who framed the discussion as an academic exchange rather than a confrontational debate. According to Millat Times, Dwivedi laid out rules requesting participants and the audience to avoid slogans and personal attacks, and emphasised that the discussion was not intended to promote or criticise any particular religion.

The Chenab Times reported that the debate followed a structured academic format, including opening statements, rebuttal rounds, and a moderated question-and-answer session, and maintained a civil tone despite sharp disagreements between the speakers.

Arguments presented

Shamail Nadwi

Nadwi argued that neither empirical science nor religious scripture could function as a universally accepted standard for proving or disproving God’s existence. He maintained that science is confined to the physical realm, while scripture presupposes belief in revelation. Instead, he grounded his position in philosophical reasoning, particularly the contingency argument (cosmological argument), asserting that the universe depends on causes and therefore requires a necessary, independent being to explain its existence.

Nadwi further contended that scientific explanations address how natural processes function but do not resolve the question of why the universe exists. On moral philosophy, he questioned whether ethical standards can be determined by majority opinion alone. Addressing suffering and evil, he emphasised human free will and moral responsibility, arguing that acts of violence and cruelty arise from human choices rather than divine intent.

Javed Akhtar

Akhtar approached the debate from an atheist and rationalist standpoint, questioning the permanence and universality of religious belief systems. He distinguished between belief grounded in evidence, testimony, and reason, and faith that requires acceptance without proof, stating that such faith discourages questioning. Akhtar maintained that morality is a human-created framework developed to regulate social behaviour rather than an inherent feature of nature.

A central theme of Akhtar’s argument was human suffering, particularly the deaths of civilians in conflict zones such as Gaza. He questioned how the existence of an omnipotent and benevolent God could be reconciled with the continued suffering of children, stating that such realities challenged traditional notions of divine justice. He also emphasised that his position was one of questioning absolute claims about God’s existence rather than asserting certainty.

Public and media reaction

General media coverage and public response

Writing in The Wire, political theorist Saroj Giri interpreted the debate as part of a broader philosophical and political discussion rather than a simple confrontation between belief and disbelief. He argued that the positions articulated by both speakers reflected underlying assumptions about entitlement, morality, and human suffering, suggesting that the apparent opposition between theistic and atheistic perspectives was less absolute than it appeared. He situated the exchange within wider contemporary debates on modernity, consumerism, and ethical responsibility, linking it to broader questions of faith, skepticism, and human agency in conditions of conflict and inequality.

The debate received extensive coverage across Indian and international media outlets and generated significant discussion on social media platforms. Reports noted polarised public reactions, with supporters of both perspectives engaging in wider conversations about belief, skepticism, morality, and the role of religion in public life.

Commentary and critical perspectives

Writing in The Indian Express, Gauhar Raza described the debate as an unusually civil exchange in a polarised public environment and argued that its significance lay in demonstrating how sharply opposing views could be expressed with restraint and dialogue.

BBC Urdu reported that the debate generated wide public discussion and criticism, particularly following Javed Akhtar’s remarks on human suffering in Gaza, situating the exchange within broader conversations on religion, belief, and skepticism in contemporary society.

Navbharat Times reported that Akhtar made a remark during the debate comparing the prime minister favourably to divine intervention, which drew significant online attention.

Rajasthan Patrika described the exchange as a direct public debate between atheistic and theistic viewpoints that generated extensive discussion on social media, while noting that it was not a contest resulting in a clear victory or defeat for either side.

Journalist Suhail Anjum cautioned against portraying the debate as a win–loss confrontation, criticising attempts by some commentators to frame it as a symbolic victory or defeat, and emphasising that the exchange remained a civil intellectual discussion rather than a battle between faith and disbelief.

Writing in The Indian Express, political theorist Yogendra Yadav argued that public debates on the existence of God risk diverting attention from more urgent issues of religion and religiosity, while acknowledging the debate’s civility and popularity. Separately, The Times of India columnist Mohammed Wajihuddin described the exchange as avoidable, suggesting that such debates offer limited relevance to contemporary social concerns.

Scholarly and interpretive responses

Islamic scholar and social media commentator Yasir Nadeem al Wajidi described the debate as part of a broader global conversation on the question of God, stating that such discussions were taking place worldwide and that the exchange in New Delhi was an important part of that ongoing conversation.

Shabnam Hashmi, writing in National Herald, argued that the debate was timely and socially significant, defending its relevance as an assertion of scientific temper and critical inquiry in contemporary India, particularly amid rising challenges to rationalism, secular values, and democratic discourse.

Writing in Awaz The Voice, Uzma Khatoon situated the Akhtar–Nadwi exchange within the Islamic intellectual tradition of reasoned theological debate, particularly Ilm al-Kalam, presenting it as a continuation of Islam’s historical engagement with logic, free will, and moral responsibility rather than a purely modern confrontation between faith and skepticism.

In Muslim Mirror, Hamid Naseem Rafiabadi interpreted the debate through the lens of classical metaphysics and moral philosophy, contrasting Nadwi’s grounding in traditional arguments of contingency and necessity with Akhtar's ethical and rhetorical critique, and framed the exchange as reflective of enduring philosophical approaches rather than a resolution of the question of God’s existence.

Journalist Jagdish Rattanani connected the Akhtar–Nadwi debate to critiques of modern rationalism and development, arguing that technoscience-driven progress has contributed to ecological degradation and a loss of ethical and civilisational balance, and calling for greater environmental and moral responsibility in contemporary discourse.

In an interview following the debate, Nadwi told Al Jazeera Mubasher that the exchange attracted significant interest among young people and non-Muslims, and that he received messages from individuals who said it prompted them to reconsider questions of faith; he added that while he perceived an impact, no independently verified data were available to support broader claims. In a separate interview with Frontline, Akhtar reaffirmed his atheistic position, arguing that human suffering, war, and injustice strengthened his skepticism and that moral responsibility rested with human action rather than divine intervention.

See also

• Problem of evil